Study tour examines health care systems in Germany, Holland--Part I: A comparison of three health care systems

In October 1992, the American College of Physician Executives sponsored a study tour to Berlin, Germany, and Amsterdam, Holland. Meetings were held with government officials, third-party payers, and providers, and onsite visits were made at hospitals, clinics, and academic centers. The purpose was to study the health care delivery system in those countries and to share some insights with the countries' hosts on the U.S. system. Beginning in this issue of the journal, 5 of the 10 study tour participants describe their impressions of the tour and of the health care systems in the countries that were visited. This first report compares the health care delivery systems of the United States, Germany, and Holland. In subsequent reports, the German and Dutch health care systems will be described in greater detail and the ability of the United States to adopt European health care systems will be assessed.     

National health insurance--to be or not to be

It has been pointed out by advocates of change in the U.S. health care delivery system that, with the exception of the Republic of South Africa, the United States is the only industrialized nation without a system of national health care. Rising costs and an increasing percentage of Americans without insurance and with limited access to health care services has heightened interest in the development of a mechanism for payment for health care services in this country.     

MSOs: key to PHOs and community-based health care systems

In the '50s and '60s, as you drove through the United States, you could not help but notice the large number of mom and pop businesses--gas stations, groceries, restaurants. The same ride in the '70s and '80s is remembered because of the large number of these businesses that had closed their doors. In the '90s, this could very well begin to happen to doctor's offices and small clinics as medicine comes to look more and more like a business. This decade has already seen a shift in medicine from fee-for-service to more managed types of insurance and payment programs and the beginning of larger physician groups. Proposed health reform initiatives can only serve to accelerate these trends. Those in medicine prepared for changes will survive and perhaps even thrive. The others will wither on the vine. One of the key strategies that will enhance survival is cooperation and organization among the different players--hospitals, insurance companies, and providers. An extremely valuable tool for survival, along with the independent practice arrangement, the integrated delivery system, etc., will be the management service organization.     

Self-directed health plans: alternatives to managed care enabled by new technologies

Few people believed the Internet would have much impact on the delivery of health care services. However, combined with technological advances in how computer systems are structured and implemented and knowing what doesn't work in managed care from bitter experience, the Internet is being used to create a new paradigm of alternative health insurance products. These products hold the potential to change for the better the face of health care as we know it. Self-directed health plans will be less expensive than managed care programs and offer greater predictability in health care spending. For health care providers, SDHPs' reliance upon episode allowances will create a new market for packaged or bundled services. Providers will be paid to provide solutions, not just treatment. This could represent a new model in which physicians accept a risk-adjusted payment and provide a warranty that they will do whatever necessary until the patient has reached the reasonably expected health status. This is a radical departure from the fee-for-service or capitation system.     

Study tour examines health care systems in Germany, Holland--Part II: The German system

In October 1992, the American College of Physician Executives sponsored a study tour to Berlin, Germany, and Amsterdam, Holland. Meetings were held with government officials, third-party payers, and providers, and on-site visits were made at hospitals, clinics, and academic centers. The purpose was to study the health care delivery system in those countries and to share some insights with the countries' hosts on the U.S. system. In a series of reports that began in the July issue of the journal, 5 of the 10 study tour participants describe their impressions of the tour and of the health care systems in the countries that were visited. In the first report, the health care delivery systems of the United States, Germany, and Holland were compared. In this report, the German system is analyzed in greater detail.     

Mexican system a mix of public and private providers

The following article is one of a series that deal with the provision of health care services around the world. Other countries in the series include Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. Countries scheduled for coverage in the series include Austria, France, Singapore, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The countries are described using a grid of characteristics so that comparisons may be made more easily. All of the analyses, along with further comparative data, will be gathered into a freestanding book to be published later in the year. Dr. Mendoza serves as the editor for the project.     

Cutting out the middlemen: physicians as providers, direct contractors, and payers. Interview by Donna Vavala

While many physicians and physician groups are forging alliances with other groups, with hospitals, and with other elements of the health care delivery system, an Ohio group decided that the loss of autonomy involved in these approaches was not acceptable. Instead, the group became the core of a new entity aimed at restoring physician control over the provision of and payment for health care services. In an interview with the principal of the new organization, Physician Executive learned the basis for the venture.     

How should managed care physicians be paid?

When paying a physician for medical or surgical services, most patients expect the traditional bill or charge for that encounter or visit. While most people also pay health insurance premiums, few patients expect to prepay for their health care. But that is the foundation of most managed health care systems-prepaid medicine. PPOs, IPAs, and HMOs are typically health care providers linked together to provide services to a set population for a specific prepaid fee or "capitation" payment. Other providers contract with these managed care insurers to receive a predetermined and often "discounted" professional fee for services. These managed care organizations have already gone through a number of stages in determining how physicians are to be compensated for their services, and further changes loom on the horizon.     

Development of a local Physician Executive Leadership Program

Dramatic changes are occurring at a rapid pace throughout the United States in virtually all aspects of health care delivery. Physicians, hospitals, consumer groups, and others are thus facing new and greater uncertainties and are forced to adapt to a continually shifting environment. Fundamental change of this magnitude has and will continue to result in the formation of new alliances and organizations within which physicians and others will be forced to function. To participate effectively in these processes of change and to maintain influence within these new organizations, physicians will need leadership and management skills. To address the challenges facing current physician leaders and the need to develop more effective leaders, Sharp HealthCare developed its Physician Executive Leadership Program. This article describes the program and summarizes some of the lessons learned regarding the training of physician executives and leaders in today's changing health care environment.     

Medical resource allocation: rationing and ethical considerations--Part I

The United States' system of high-quality but expensive and poorly distributed medical care is in trouble. Dramatic advances in medical knowledge and procedures, combined with soaring demands created by growing public awareness, the cost of private hospital and medical insurance, and Medicare and Medicaid, are burdening the medical care delivery systems. The costs of medical care have reached levels that can no longer be sustained. Government officials, insurance planners, labor leaders responsible for union health care benefits, and ordinary citizens are questioning whether it is acceptable to limit health care based on economic considerations. If health care is deemed a social good, the method of allocation must be addressed. Unless society decides that other priorities of the infrastructure are to be subjugated to health service delivery, difficult decisions will be forced upon us, consciously or by default. The discussion in this two-part article explores the ethical considerations of the more formalized approaches to resource allocation that presently exist in our society.     

The remote practice network: new concept in health care delivery.

It is widely acknowledged that a trend toward greater competition is creating dramatic changes in the way that health care is provided in the United States. Physicians and hospitals, in particular, face a difficult period of adjustment as the nation's health care system increasingly turns toward the competitive model. Physicians, particularly those in leadership positions, must meet the challenge of competition by developing and implementing effective coping strategies. Medical directors and other physicians in key leadership and decision-making positions have a responsibility to their institutions, their patients, and indeed their own careers to recognize and understand the implications of current trends in health care delivery. This article discusses an innovative approach to competition in today's challenging health care marketplace.     

The role of the coordinator of care

Regardless of the specific outcome of the current health reform debate in Washington, it is likely that major changes to the health care system are in the offering. These changes, many of which are already in place or imminent in some locations, will have a major impact on the evolving relationships between physicians and hospitals. Most expect that these changes will accelerate the development of integrated health care delivery systems that will compete in the marketplace for a mixture of public and private health insurance dollars. In this system of "managed competition," health care dollars will flow to those systems that can ensure the best clinical outcomes while using the least economic resources. In this scenario, competing collaborative health networks that can manage the continuum of care will be central to the health care delivery system. The economic and political ties between physicians and hospitals will become more closely linked as government and private payers of health care services foster the development of these integrated, value-based health care delivery systems.     

Ascendancy of primary care will create role intensification for physician executives

The need for physicians in management roles in the health care system has never been greater. And the years ahead will see that need broadened and intensified. To maintain their leadership role in medical affairs in hospitals and other types of health care delivery organizations, physician executives will have to envision provider organizations and systems that have not yet been conceived, let alone developed and implemented. They have to become totally open-minded and futuristic in their thinking. And they will have to help other physicians accommodate this new way of thinking if the medical profession is to continue in a leading role in health care matters. Although numerous factors will have to be anticipated and analyzed by these new physician leaders, the ascendancy of primary care in a managed health care world long dominated by the technical and technological superiority of hospital care will present a particular challenge to the physician executive.     

Lessons from the Soviet health care system

The United States and the former Soviet Union have historically organized health care delivery systems according to totally different paradigms. These two divergent approaches have constituted a kind of natural experiment. At the present time, our systems may be becoming more alike, with the former Soviet system decentralizing and even experimenting with forms of medical insurance. Our system, on the other hand, has become much more regulated and, if some have their way, would become increasingly monopsonistic. At this critical point, it may be useful to learn from each other's experiences as we plan for the future.     

Veteran's health care: time for a change?

The Department of Veterans Affairs' mission is "to care for him who are shall have borne the battle for his widow and orphan." The Veterans Health Administration comprises 172 hospitals that are the hub of the health care delivery system. It is the largest provider of graduate medical education, and one of the major research organizations in the United States. The medical care budget exceeds $17 billion annually. Most of the persons cared for are not legally entitled to this health care based on service connected disability. The utilization of acute care hospital beds appears excessive when compared to that obtainable with managed care for Medicare or commercial insurance beneficiaries--the cost per member per month is three times higher. There may also be exploitation of the Veterans Administration hospitals by university medical schools. The Veterans Health Administration is a very expensive way to deliver care to entitled service connected veterans. Therefore, it is suggested that privatization be considered as an alternative vehicle for delivering health care.     

Outpatient care from the payer's perspective

Beginning with this issue of Physician Executive, members of the Society on Insurance of the American College of Physician Executives will provide an ongoing column for readers on the unique point of view of the health care insurer. The column starts with an offering by the Chairman of the Society on the physician executive's role in resolving the anomalies of the health care payment system.     

Primary care: the driver in health care reform

The changes occurring in the health care industry have resulted in a cost-quality competition that has not been present in the past. Because of this competition, managed care is a growing way of financing and providing health care to the people of the United States. Managed care depends heavily on competent primary care physicians. Because primary care physicians are in short supply, the status and financial rewards of primary care practice are increasing. The primary care physician will be the dominant force in medical practice in the immediate future. He or she is capable in a managed setting of resolving the perceived problems of the health care industry in responding to the drivers of health care reform. Costs are reduced while quality is maintained. Access to health care is improved, and fragmentation of health care is significantly lessened.     

Truman and the medical profession: replay or lesson for the nineties

This article describes the first serious effort on the part of an American president to enact national health insurance (NHI). President Truman considered his inability to enact NHI the single most important defeat during his presidency. While a variety of factors led to the demise of NHI, three are most notable. The dynamic interplay of these factors, integrated with references to the current accelerating debate over national health reform, will serve as the focus for this seventh article in a series on historical efforts to enact national health reform in the United States.     

System reform in integrated health systems

As the debate progresses on health care reform and the ultimate form of the U.S. system, important lessons can be drawn from examinations of other health care systems. From the U.S. perspective, European health systems appear to have a certain homogeneity about them. Americans tend to look at all European arrangements as single-source financing systems. Because these systems all provide universal coverage, the assumption is that there must be a strong cohesion and similarity among them. Viewed from the European perspective, the reality appears to be rather different. In this article, the health cae systems of Nordic countries are analyzed in terms of their differences both from other European systems and from the United States approach.     

A guide to the upcoming health reform debate

AT the 1992 ACPE National Institute, several hundred physician executives actively participated in a debate on three competing visions for the health care system in the United States. This new column in the journal attempts to further this process by providing information on policy positions of relevance to College members. While the College does not advocate a particular position, the College encourages individual members to contact the interest group of their choice and get involved in the health policy debate. In this first column, one of the proposals currently being discussed is summarized.